ParkingEye are just doing their usual phishing exercise for the driver. Nothing has changed: the Keeper has already appealed, and there is still no obligation to name the driver.Respond with the following:QuoteRe: Parking Charge Notice 309137/543921; Vehicle registration: [VRM]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the registered keeper. I have no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline your invitation to do so.
Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including paragraph 9(2)(e). As such, you cannot transfer liability from the driver to me as keeper. The warning you quote from paragraph 9(2)(f) is only effective where the notice is fully compliant, which it is not.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no inference or assumption can be drawn.
Please now either:1. Cancel this Parking Charge Notice, or
2. Reject my appeal and issue a POPLA verification code in my name as keeper.
I do not consent to any further requests for driver details.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
Re: Parking Charge Notice 309137/543921; Vehicle registration: [VRM]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the registered keeper. I have no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline your invitation to do so.
Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including paragraph 9(2)(e). As such, you cannot transfer liability from the driver to me as keeper. The warning you quote from paragraph 9(2)(f) is only effective where the notice is fully compliant, which it is not.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no inference or assumption can be drawn.
Please now either:1. Cancel this Parking Charge Notice, or
2. Reject my appeal and issue a POPLA verification code in my name as keeper.
I do not consent to any further requests for driver details.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
"In addition the signage states that, as a maximum stay car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the vehicle remains within the car park for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time."
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Parkingeye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Parkingeye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.